ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] IGO/RC motion

At 24/07/2014 06:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> BTW, I earlier, you mentioned that an NCSG position was that whatever we
> give IGOs, we should give INGOs. The ALAC was an early advocate of INGO
> protections and I think it would likely agree with you in this case. I
> would support incorporating that into anything we pass to the WG.

My interpretation of the rule we are working under, does not allow the
the reopened WG to do anything more that agree or disagree with the
proposed amendments.  I do not think the reopened group has the option
to change the proposed amendments.

A different rule might allow that, but in this case, I think the rule
this is being presented under would not allow that.  If we wanted that,
we would need to change the amendments before sending them.


I agree that if te WG is to consider it, it must be included by us when we send it to them. There is nothing as I see it that limits what we put in to what was in the letter. If adding this makes it more palatable to the NCSG, I think it is fair game to propose adding it.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>